I think I have finally "put my finger on it"

[Raven Crowking]

Today, with the exception of Lord of the Rings (thanks to the movies), none of those books are still in the mainstream of the collective sci-fi, college nerd crowd. I seriously doubt that a sizable number of gamers under 25 have even heard of most of the source material for D&D (again, with the exception of LotR). What's more, as much as I love Conan, Leiber, De Camp et. al, they actually weren't very good literature

Just so you know, the Conan comics from Dark Horse is doing quite well. Definitely a sales item in my store, and something that I personally collect. There is an upcomming Kull and Solomon Kane series as well.

Everyone has their own opinions, but it should be noted that the sample of adventure play in the 1e DMG assumes players familiar with Shakespeare (The Tempest, to be precise). While Howard's writing is rough, it is vibrant, and there are quite a few things that he wrote that I would contend are good (although not deep). While I also enjoy the ERB material, it is clear when reading ERB and Howard that ERB was far more of a "formula" writer, whereas Howard's work contains far more meat.

(Yet, OTOH, it is ERB's Mars books that contain a desert planet where the wild natives ride gigantic pad-footed beasts, and which gave us such terms as padwar, jed, jeddak, banth, and sith, so I'm guessing that those novels continue to influence our culture in round-about ways..... )

The Conan, Kull, Solomon Kane, and other Howard stories are currently being reprinted. Howard's work that appeared in Weird Tales is being reprinted in its entirety in a 10-volume set. It runs the gamut from pretty bad pulp to thought-provoking. Edgar Rice Burroughs' books are also beginning to appear in new printings.

Even those these books might not be "great literature", they are worth reading. Anyone who can read Conan, Solomon Kane, Tarzan, or John Carter stories without recognizing the origins of certain D&D tropes -- and gaining ideas for how to use those tropes effectively in within the game -- isn't trying very hard! OTOH, if your game can convey half the energy of Howard's writing (or Burroughs at his best), it will be a fine game indeed.

RC

 

[Storm Raven]

In 3.5e it is possible to make up an entire party of characters who are good at everything. 4 of their members out of 5 could drop dead and they'd still be capable of dealing damage, controlling the enemies, taking damage, healing themselves, etc.

Well, not in my experience. In 3.5e it is certainly possible to make an entire party of characters who are able to do everything - but they are all mediocre to lousy at all of those things. The specialist was still better in his niche than the generalist.

 

[JamesM]

So as much as I love all of the old books, and as much as I dislike much of the fantasy that's popular today, D&D needs to change with the times to keep fresh and relevant to todays market.

That's the crux of it -- and it's also the reason why I'll probably get off the D&D train at Station 3.5. I cannot (and indeed do not) fault WotC for trying to make the game more appealing to people whose understanding of "fantasy" does not include Howard and Leiber and De Camp (or even Tolkien), but, by the same token, I don't have to like it.

If -- and I say if, because it's too early to say for certain, even if there are solid hints -- it's true that 4E is "updating" its look and feel to borrow more heavily from contemporary fantasy, then, to my mind anyway, it might as well be a new game entirely. In fact, the more I see of these Design & Developments articles, the more I read of the designer's blogs, the more convinced I am that isn't really 4E at all but Dungeons & Dragons 2.0, someone's idea of what the game would have been like if it'd been created in 2008 rather than 1974.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I think that's what people mean when they say that 4E doesn't "feel" like D&D anymore. Its inspirations and its source material seem very different than what some of us associate with the core elements of D&D-style fantasy, which were derived primarily from the pulp fantasy and science fiction Gygax read as a young person. I understand few people read that stuff now (more's the pity), but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, once you change the inspirations of your core elements, you change more than just "chrome" or "fluff;" you change the game itself.

That's why some people are anxious about 4E and I think it's a very reasonable anxiety. It may not be one shared by many people on these forums, but it's not irrational.

 

[Vigilance]

What's more, as much as I love Conan, Leiber, De Camp et. al, they actually weren't very good literature: they were largely Pulp novels, that were fun to read (the Incomplete Enchanter is one of my favorite guilty pleasure from the time) but they weren't exactly Shakespeare. Is there anything wrong with that? Of course not! But let's not make the mistake of saying that we're talking high art.

No, sorry.

Way to lump the originator with his imitators/pastichers.

RE Howard is, imo, a great writer.

The others you listed were guys trying to recapture or live off his magic.

And I'm happy to see Howard finally being TREATED like an actual, honest to god, good writer.

Only his Conan stories, without pastiches mixed in? In the order he wrote them (as opposed to someone else's "chronilogical reordering")?

His Kull, Solomane Kane and Cthulhu stories being reprinted?

His Boxing stories being reprinted?!?!?

And he did all this by age 30, which is when most writers actually start to mature in their craft, and people are still reading him 70 some-odd years later.

Huh, sounds like a great writer to me.

 

[GravyFingerz]

If making 4e more fun to play and more fun to DM requires sacrificing the original tropes that D&D was based off, then I say, let's eat some cow. I'd rather they sacrifice a million sacred cows and made D&D fun rather than stick to what used to be popular and base it off that.


Now that isn't to say I'm not a fan of the older literature that inspired the Gax to write D&D: I love Howard, Leiber, Burroughs, just to name a few. In fact, I go out od my way to seek the authors in the recommended reading in the Moldvay Basic Set, because I feel it gives me more understanding about the older game.

But not just in game making, but in everything, designing with an older way of thinking leads to stagnation. By abandoning older philosophies and methodologies and embracing new innovative ways, they can make D&D a better game. Hell, it's about choosing the ones that do work and the one's that don't. Keep the old philosophies that work and embrace the new ones that do. Rather than reject a game we know next to nothing about, why don't we all wait before we pass judgement. May is a long way away, and there is a lot of time to start flame wars about loving or hating the game. The more flame wars, the more people get peeved off. Let's try and avoid that.

 

[JamesM]

RE Howard is, imo, a great writer.

Howard was must certainly a great writer and, like his contemporary Lovecraft, he's finally being recognized as such by literary scholars, who'd previously turned their noses up at him and dismissed his work solely on the basis of where it appeared.

FWIW, I'd argue that Leiber was also a great writer and his Nehwon stories are a cut above most fantasy literature written before or since.

 

[Najo]

It's nice that you've resigned yourself to liking 4th Ed. months before substantial information is even set to come out. Liking the little information - a series of ambiguous articles on design philosophy, pieces of subjective concept and promotional art, and anecdotes about malleable fluff - we've seen thus far is one thing. Liking the work that that information composes the tiniest fraction of is another thing altogether.

Its amazed me that the 'there's not enough information to be negative argument' negates to say how the same lack of information can justify a positive one. In both cases its people's feelings judgements and opinions and all are equally of value.

Nigel

Except the people being negative are ignoring the comments of the designers saying that it is the D&D we love only better. That our game is needing a new edition (which it does) and is finally getting streamlined and made accesible for the current age we are in and that, like their work on 3.0 and 3.5, are moving towards a better game and business model.

Personally, I am surprised their is as many people "concerned" when these the same guys that they trusted to make 3.5 material. Most of WOTC's team right now really gets it and knows what D&D needs. They have a better handle on its mechanics, the issues DM and players face and the direction 3.5 was headed with locking new players out of the game.

The signs of needing a 4th edition were clealry there if you step back and look at the game's issues with new players learning to play, multiclassing, DMs building encounters, out of control power levels and adventure design at highlevels, messed up epic level rules, the "sweet spot" lacking in early and late level game play. These are the reasons 4e is getting made, not because they want to just make a new editon to make a new edition. Anyone who plays this game and either DMs it, plays with new players or works in a game store that creates new D&D players would see these things and know they're true.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Only his Conan stories, without pastiches mixed in? In the order he wrote them (as opposed to someone else's "chronilogical reordering")?

His Kull, Solomane Kane and Cthulhu stories being reprinted?

His Kull, Solomon Kane, and Conan stories have all been reprinted, as originally published, with notes, draft versions, etc. The Weird Tales series is everything published in Weird Tales, plus a few extras, in the order that they were published, and as they originally appeared (i.e., no new editting).

His Boxing stories being reprinted?!?!?

I'm not sure about all of them, but there's at least one of the Steve Costigan stories in one of the newer Howard volumes.

RC

 

[Vigilance]

Howard was must certainly a great writer and, like his contemporary Lovecraft, he's finally being recognized as such by literary scholars, who'd previously turned their noses up at him and dismissed his work solely on the basis of where it appeared.

FWIW, I'd argue that Leiber was also a great writer and his Nehwon stories are a cut above most fantasy literature written before or since.

Oh yeah, I love Leiber. I was mostly objecting to Howard being lumped in with him, when I think Howard is the better writer.

So I wasn't really trying to trash Leiber, but praise Howard

Chuck

 

[Rechan]

The hit point system is deliberately abstract. If you can show me where in the rules a fighter can "take a giant-hurled boulder in the chest without being knocked down and keep swinging like he was at full power" I'll concede that you are correct. However, the hit point system doesn't do this.

Care to cite where it says the hit point system is abstract and thus I am wrong?

No matter how you explain hit points, the fact that a fighter past 10th level can leap off a hundred foot cliff, stand up and keep swinging his sword just as easily as he was at max health still stands.